Use ULEZ to invest in sustainable transport
Low Emission Zones (LEZ) have ignited fierce debate in recent months, becoming a political battleground and catalyst for seemingly endless headlines. As voters go to the polls for the Uxbridge and South Ruislip by-election – on the periphery of London – today, we have seen the zones become a lightning rod for campaigns on both sides.
Looking at the air quality statistics alone, London's Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ) – perhaps the most ambitious scheme of its kind – boasts an impressive 46% reduction in NO2 levels since its inception in 2019.
Yet opposition to the plans for expanding the zone across the whole of Greater London (boundaried by the M25) is significant, with five councils recently calling a high court case where the expansion was deemed beyond the legal authority of Sadiq Khan, Mayor of London.
Central to opponents’ case is the financial hardship faced by individuals unable to afford the daily charge of £12.50 or upgrade their vehicles to meet emission standards. However, it’s worth noting that only a small fraction of cars registered in outer London – just one in ten – will actually be subject to the ULEZ fee.
Reducing our reliance on private vehicles in city centres in the first place is pivotal to addressing air quality, yet 45% of the public believes public transport falls short in replacing cars, according to a recent nationwide poll by Enjoy the Air.
While central London faces fewer challenges in this regard, less well-connected cities leave people with limited choices other than using cars. In the capital, buses and tubes may be subsidised but Transport for London is in a perpetual funding crisis.
This is where the ULEZ charge presents an opportunity, for the Greater London Authority to invest further in sustainable transport infrastructure. The £224 million generated by London's ULEZ in 2022 was earmarked to enhance public transport connectivity; an expanded ULEZ means more funding for the same purpose, and it’s a model other regions and local authority areas may well follow.
The complex reality of each city or local area’s position does, however, have to be addressed with ‘place-based’ solutions. A one size fits all solution – insisting that Lanarkshire takes on the same regime as London – would clearly cause all kinds of difficulties. Every city has its own distinct make up, with varying sociodemographic representation, industry needs and environmental challenges.
Bath's LEZ, for example, focuses on businesses and commercial vehicles. This exemplifies a tailored approach that acknowledges local dynamics and minimises undue burdens on specific segments of society.
But each area working out whether and how to implement a LEZ is simply recognising what a pressing issue air pollution remains. Polluted roads affect 94% of the country and contribute to 9,400 premature deaths annually in London alone.
And it is the very communities whom ULEZ opponents say are disproportionately affected by the charge – those in poorer socioeconomic groups – who are also most likely have their lives shortened by long-term exposure to polluted air. Paradoxically, these communities tend to be responsible for the least pollution, as car ownership and usage is lower.
Meanwhile the most alarming idea floating around is that ULEZ could be switched on and off depending on who is city hall. Air pollution is a long-term problem in need of a long-term solution. It is no exaggeration to say that it is children’s lungs which will pay the price if schemes are introduced and abolished every four years based on whose political stars are rising and falling.
As we await the outcomes of the Uxbridge by-election, and in advance of next year’s General Election, one thing is clear: environmental policy desperately needs cross-party working. The nation’s health depends on it.
Kate Barnard is Chief Executive of Enjoy the Air, an organisation working to demonstrate the cause and effect of air pollution to healthcare authorities.
